That's the most hilariously wrong thing I've ever heard
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Explain this, because it is beyond me how this could be offered as a statement worth considering.
Violence requires a degree of emotional maturity to deal with it. Years ago, my mum would cringe and walk out the room hearing Lara Croft fall to her death and hear her bones breaking or choking while drowning. I call that emotionally weak.
Immaturity is merely a lack of development. Once you've played enough games designed for immature gamers, you grow out of them because they don't satisfy your level of gaming needs.
In the same way, films don't affect you like they did when you were a kid UNLESS you haven't developed beyond that level. That's not to say people have to be embarrassed about it and somehow justify what they do by pretending it's meant for adults. Some people just don't feel the need to move on.
If an increasingly large group of people decide they want to be a part of franchises aimed at kids, does that change the target demographic? I personally don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
OK, so you have no clue what emotionally weak means
Define what you think it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
Well, I'm pretty sure my sisters, with there respective PhDs in biochemistry and molecular biology, would disagree with you.
You're talking about intellect not emotions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
As someone with a degree in epidemiology, I know that I disagree with you.
Now you're talking about immunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Because it is not a popular way to attack the XBox, that's why.
Yeeeeah and why isn't it a popular way to attack it?
I would suggest because it cannot be attacked in that way where the Wii can be because it is primarily aimed at children. If it wasn't then people wouldn't attack it like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
So a sidescrolling jumper is the same as running around in 3D and shooting things with water cannons and flying on water jets?
I won't really argue, but Wolf3D has more similar mechanics to Crysis than Mario Brothers NES has to Super Mario Sunshine.
Well to me personally, the Mario games felt the same. Like I say, these things can't be defined universally. It depends on what level of gameplay experience you are at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Yes, I have a definition that is technical and correct and yours is unnecessarily selective with the sole purpose of backing your argument.
Not selective, it's just different for different people and the definition of intense is based on your own experience. If you were really small in a country of really small people and someone of normal height came to visit, you'd say he was tall. But the tall person thinks he's average size and thinks you guys are small because he has a different benchmark for tall.
In the same way, I think most Nintendo games are weaker than PS3/XBox 360 games because I have a different benchmark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
When did I ever argue that some franchises were not designed solely for children? Barbie Adventures are not in any way meant for people older than 10. Zelda and Mario games are designed for a much larger age range.
How do you know that Zelda and Mario are designed for a large age range? I'm pretty sure sure Barbie doesn't have an upper age limit either. All they put on the box is something like 3+. The plus isn't there to include everybody in the same way a game for 'everyone' isn't meant for everyone. It just means the content is weak enough that it won't offend anyone over the age of 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Who are "hardcore gamers"?
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
Look at the gameplay in Mario Galaxy. You run around a planet, jumping and collecting and then you hop to another planet, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at everyone.
You can't expect a 6 year old kid to be able to maneuver an infantry unit or control a character with enough stealth to avoid snipers and still take on enemies in close combat. I see my young relatives play games and it's completely different to how I play games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
What is this amount? The Wii cannot stay on shelves long enough to test this hypothesis of yours.
All that says is people prefer cheap to intense.
Also, a lot of parents will get a Wii for their kids and that's probably the biggest market for games.
In fact, I'd say the Wii has split the market further than the previous generation consoles by simply not trying to compete on the same terms the PS3 and XBox are. They are themselves admitting that they're not after the same market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
What are the characteristics of an "in-depth gameplay experience"?
One that isn't full of repetitive gameplay mechanics. So for example, hopping from one small planet to another is not in-depth gameplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Far Cry - Wii
Resident Evil - Wii
Call of Duty - Wii
Manhunt 2 - Wii
There are exceptions of course - I can't think of many stereotypes that are based on absolutes. But having a handful of these games does not redefine the console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
So you're a grown man and you think playing a Sony/Microsoft-brand video game is objectively cooler than playing a Nintendo-brand video game?
I AM A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN! I HAVE SEX WITH MANY WOMEN!
Bingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by success
It worked for me.
For Wii owners, even the smallest gestures can be quite overwhelming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guarth
You drive a Hummer and buy lots of products with 'X-TREME' in the name, don't you?
I drive a Fiat Punto X-treme. I can do 0-60 in a couple of minutes. But those minutes are pretty extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant
Multiplayer Mario Cart (ESRB rating: E) is certainly more "intense" than sniping people in a GTA series game. In fact, multiplayer Mario Cart is just as "intense" and results in just as much exciting competition as any other action-heavy multiplayer game like Halo or COD.
Compare Mario Kart to Burnout and the difference is pretty staggering.
Also, it wasn't really GTA I meant. When I say blowing someone's head off with a rifle, I meant just sniping them in the head. There are games where you have to duck under cover and aim at people's heads.
One example of a pretty intense FPS game for the PSP involves enemies with electro-plated armor. You have to electrocute them first to disable their armor and then sniper them while taking fire from other enemies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho
MarioKart Double-Dash is responsible for my clean-mouthed wife uttering the phrase "Mother-fucking figure skating mother-fuckers!"
It's null and void because there was figure skating involved. This is what I meant by a varying level of intensity. If figure skaters were too much to handle before swearing then that's the sign of an inexperienced gamer.
New to the internet are you? Also it only becomes an argument when people reduce it to name-calling, so please don't do that, just allow the grown ups to discuss the subject rationally.
Violence requires maturity.
OK, it's more than obvious by now you're either a troll, or an attention whore, or both and not worth my time; but I'll go ahead and do this anyway, mainly because I'm bored.
The first problem is, you're using faulty and circular logic. For example, here is some of your logic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
Look at the gameplay in Mario Galaxy. You run around a planet, jumping and collecting and then you hop to another planet, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at everyone.
Now, this applies just as easily to the games you profess to be 'mature', 'intense' and I hazard to guess, 'manly':
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, shoot, repeat because it's boring.
Look at the game play in Crysis. You run around a level, hiding and shooting and then you hop to another level, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at intense 'adults' who are cooler than everyone else.
I'd love it if you could offer a concise, logical explanation with evidence, of how the fundamental game play in a modern shooter differs significantly from Doom? I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'? Keep in mind, I'm a fan of FPS, and have been playing FPS since before you were born (or I assume so from the maturity/coherence of your posts), original Doom shareware version up to the modern era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Violence requires maturity.
On to your opinion that a game isn't mature or intense unless it is violent, and apparently a similar fascination with violent movies.
How many people have YOU killed, personally?
Myself, none directly. But, I have been trained to kill, and after serving through two wars and a few 'minor conflicts', I've been a member of units that have killed people.
So, by your own logic, I am far more mature (and intense!) than you.
To go on, that would mean that a 13 year old member of a warlord's private army in Africa is more mature than either of us, since he 'plays' FPS for real, right? Hitler or Stalin would be the most mature and intense people of all time, since they have the most frags, right? You must think Ghandi was one immature bugger.
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence; and that many games incorporate some type of violence, obviously of different depiction levels.
After all, even Mario involves some violence, you are stomping on enemies and crushing their life out, pulling the limbs off of an octopus, etc. I mentioned earlier that I enjoy a good FPS, in fact I used to play them almost exclusively, and still put in a couple hours a week when I get the time, sometimes more when I'm close to an MP unlock, or come across a good SP one, like HL2 and it's Episodes.
Then I grew up (some might say matured) and realized that there is more to life than such simplistic game play day after day. Have you ever achieved a cultural victory in Civ4-BtS without going to war? Made it through the Enclave in Fallout 2 without firing a shot? Won a MP game of C&C using only mini gunners? (I was the victim of that one) Made it all the way through Tower Defense with your friends in WC3? Not as hand/eye/twitch intense as an FPS, but much more intellectually satisfying.
I don't think that playing a family/party/sports game with friends makes someone any less of a man, less mature, etc. In fact they are pretty popular within the military on deployment, good for letting off steam after the real bullets are flying. (I'm sure you don't know anything about that though)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
In fact, I'd say the Wii has split the market further than the previous generation consoles by simply not trying to compete on the same terms the PS3 and XBox are. They are themselves admitting that they're not after the same market.
And which one is laughing all the way to the bank, while outselling the others by a huge margin, and having sex with many women on their piles of cash? Maybe Nintendo isn't the one in the wrong market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
And you seem to be indicating that you ignore common knowledge. Women are genetically the emotionally weaker sex. It doesn't apply to all women but I'm generalizing.
Sigh. This has been covered by others, but I'll just say you need to get the number of a good divorce lawyer, you're going to need one.
I don't expect any of this to change your opinion though, just as I don't take what is said on the internet personally. Although I do feel better after venting some...\
If you are into mature games, get PS3 or Xbox 360. Even the president of Nintendo will agree that they have better selection of mature games than a Wii.
If you are into family-oriented games, get a Wii. And please, let's not debate on what constitutes mature and family-oriented. You know exactly what they are. If you don't, you are probably better off NOT playing any games.
If impressive technical spec is important to you, get PS3 or Xbox 360. If you like Blu-Ray, get a PS3. If you like HD DVD, get an Xbox 360.
If motion sensing controllers interest you more than HD graphics and sound, get a Wii.
If you are into mature games, get PS3 or Xbox 360. Even the president of Nintendo will agree that they have better selection of mature games than a Wii.
If you are into family-oriented games, get a Wii. And please, let's not debate on what constitutes mature and family-oriented. You know exactly what they are. If you don't, you are probably better off NOT playing any games.
If impressive technical spec is important to you, get PS3 or Xbox 360. If you like Blu-Ray, get a PS3. If you like HD DVD, get an Xbox 360.
If motion sensing controllers interest you more than HD graphics and sound, get a Wii.
Do you really think you 'solved' the question this thread posed?
Nice try but the things you say have been said and debated ad nauseam.
Now, this applies just as easily to the games you profess to be 'mature', 'intense' and I hazard to guess, 'manly':
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, shoot, repeat because it's boring.
Look at the game play in Crysis. You run around a level, hiding and shooting and then you hop to another level, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at intense 'adults' who are cooler than everyone else.
I'd love it if you could offer a concise, logical explanation with evidence, of how the fundamental game play in a modern shooter differs significantly from Doom? I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'? Keep in mind, I'm a fan of FPS, and have been playing FPS since before you were born (or I assume so from the maturity/coherence of your posts), original Doom shareware version up to the modern era.
Even though the concept of going around and shooting people is continuous, the way you do it differs every level. It's not like you're walking in a straight line and there's always a guy in the same spot right in front of you and you shoot him. In fps's, the enemy is clever. He hides and you must seek. You have different missions in which you much neutralize the enemy or diffuse a bomb. You must rescue your fallen comrades while dodging bullets which are flying at you from every which way.
The perfect example of this is CoD4. If you're a sniper for say, you must hide in a good place, or else the enemy sees you as soon as you shoot and when they respawn, BAM!, you're dead.
OK, it's more than obvious by now you're either a troll, or an attention whore, or both and not worth my time; but I'll go ahead and do this anyway, mainly because I'm bored.
I hope you're not holding yourself to a different standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'?
There are more complex character controls and also tactics like stealth. In Splinter Cell, you can toss a coin or something to attract a guard but stay hidden before you attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
So, by your own logic, I am far more mature (and intense!) than you.
Not really, you haven't killed anybody but if you had, I would agree that's pretty intense.
This does not however mean that you are intense now. My grandad also fought in those wars and did kill people but these days likes to watch soap operas and gardening programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence; and that many games incorporate some type of violence, obviously of different depiction levels.
That is all I was suggesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
After all, even Mario involves some violence, you are stomping on enemies and crushing their life out, pulling the limbs off of an octopus
Yeah Groverat has said things like that before too but as filburt says, the difference is quite obvious between mature games and family games. I don't think I need to elaborate on that more than I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
I don't think that playing a family/party/sports game with friends makes someone any less of a man, less mature, etc. In fact they are pretty popular within the military on deployment, good for letting off steam after the real bullets are flying.
But you're looking at it the wrong way. The people who fire real bullets don't have to play these games and so they may play more relaxed games.
It's the same deal with porn stars. Apparently they don't watch porn movies but prefer normal films.
But that's what we are saying. If you are looking for that kind of experience, the Wii games generally don't deliver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
And which one is laughing all the way to the bank, while outselling the others by a huge margin, and having sex with many women on their piles of cash? Maybe Nintendo isn't the one in the wrong market?
Yes, but this discussion is not about which market is more profitable. It is about whether or not the Wii delivers to a certain type of player.
I have no doubt that NIntendo is happy with the market they are targeting as it's making them money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
Sigh. This has been covered by others, but I'll just say you need to get the number of a good divorce lawyer, you're going to need one.
I've got that one covered, I don't plan to get married. Of course if I ever got into a divorce-type settlement, I can just kill her with my FPS skillz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iposter
I don't expect any of this to change your opinion though, just as I don't take what is said on the internet personally. Although I do feel better after venting some...\
This is what internet discussions are all about. It doesn't matter if anyone on either side changes their mind, after all we've formed our opinions over a number of years based on our own experiences.
Violence requires a degree of emotional maturity to deal with it. Years ago, my mum would cringe and walk out the room hearing Lara Croft fall to her death and hear her bones breaking or choking while drowning. I call that emotionally weak.
Perhaps it displays maturity because she connects that to reality, and she feels real empathy for those who suffer that pain.
Your speaking about the emotional reactions of your own mother with such disdain is fairly revealing.
Quote:
If an increasingly large group of people decide they want to be a part of franchises aimed at kids, does that change the target demographic? I personally don't think so.
What franchise are you talking about?
Quote:
Yeeeeah and why isn't it a popular way to attack it?
Because they have other attacks.
The existence (or even efficacy) of an attack does not mean it is true.
Quote:
Well to me personally, the Mario games felt the same. Like I say, these things can't be defined universally. It depends on what level of gameplay experience you are at.
So you make categorical statements of reality and truth based solely on your own personal feelings?
As far as level of gameplay experience… what is this supposed to mean? Once you've logged X# of hours you no longer enjoy simple games?
Quote:
In the same way, I think most Nintendo games are weaker than PS3/XBox 360 games because I have a different benchmark.
Different? Yes.
Superior, more "mature"? No.
Quote:
How do you know that Zelda and Mario are designed for a large age range?
Because they are filled with allusions to games made 20 years ago, playing precisely on the nostalgia older gamers will feel towards the games they played when they were younger.
Quote:
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
I have been playing games for years and I am experience with complex control systems and game mechanics.
Isn't an inability on someone's part to adjust to different levels of intensity and complexity a sign of immaturity on their part? I think it is more reasonable to credit the more adaptable person with maturity.
Quote:
All that says is people prefer cheap to intense.
What is the price difference between a Wii and a base XBox 360?
The Wii retails for $250. They go on eBay for $400+.
Yet another asinine argument fails.
Quote:
One that isn't full of repetitive gameplay mechanics. So for example, hopping from one small planet to another is not in-depth gameplay.
FPS games don't have repetitive gameplay?
Run around, hide, shoot.
Run around, hide, shoot.
Run around, hide, shoot.
It's ok, because sometimes I like the process, but let's not pretend that modern FPS games are really complex at all. If you want complexity, you should start talking about highly-involved RTS.
Quote:
There are exceptions of course - I can't think of many stereotypes that are based on absolutes. But having a handful of these games does not redefine the console.
A console is nothing but the games that play on it.
FPS gameplay mechanics have moved on from Doom, no question about that. Some of them are far more complex than Groverat gives them credit for.
But the biggest steps forward I can think of were taken till about 1999. Good games have been made afterwards, but the ones that dare to do something truly new are few and far between.
This counterexample also fails:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There are more complex character controls and also tactics like stealth. In Splinter Cell, you can toss a coin or something to attract a guard but stay hidden before you attack.
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, a 3rd person stealth/combat game like Splinter Cell, had this game mechanic in 1990.
Thief: Dark Project (1998) did it in 3D from the first person perspective. Though very strictly focused on stealth, it can be called a FPS while Splinter Cell (2002) is not.
Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
Perhaps it displays maturity because she connects that to reality, and she feels real empathy for those who suffer that pain.
I agree with iPoster who agrees with me:
Quote:
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Because they have other attacks.
The existence (or even efficacy) of an attack does not mean it is true.
It has to have an element of truth or it would fall flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
So you make categorical statements of reality and truth based solely on your own personal feelings?
Nope I make definitions that encompass variables. I don't feel the need to work in absolute terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
As far as level of gameplay experience… what is this supposed to mean? Once you've logged X# of hours you no longer enjoy simple games?
Of course, that's human nature, we get bored with repetition and grow out of simple pleasures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
I have been playing games for years and I am experience with complex control systems and game mechanics.
Isn't an inability on someone's part to adjust to different levels of intensity and complexity a sign of immaturity on their part? I think it is more reasonable to credit the more adaptable person with maturity.
I have the ability to adapt but not the desire to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
What is the price difference between a Wii and a base XBox 360?
The Wii retails for $250. They go on eBay for $400+.
Yet another asinine argument fails.
You're looking at the evidence in a biased way though. The consoles are out of stock in stores because people wanted a cheap machine. They are highly priced on ebay because they are out of stock and there are some people desperate to get one. This would be the case if the Xbox was that cheap and out of stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
FPS games don't have repetitive gameplay?
Run around, hide, shoot.
Sufficient levels of AI, detailed and varied environments, different enemy defense tactics and different weapons required help keep the gameplay from being repetitive. But sure there will be some level of repetition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
It's ok, because sometimes I like the process, but let's not pretend that modern FPS games are really complex at all. If you want complexity, you should start talking about highly-involved RTS.
Isn't Portal technically a first person shooter? That can be pretty complex.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out that the majority of modern FPS games would be difficult for an inexperienced gamer to access. I'd feel relatively confident that my mum could navigate through Mario Galaxy but she'd be killed in seconds playing CoD4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
A console is nothing but the games that play on it.
It also has an identity associated with it from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony and with the exclusive titles and general style, genres, age ranges of the games presented for the console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
But you are simplifying the definition of FPS. I might as well say all games have no innovation as they all involve a 3D character moving in 3D space doing something and that's been done since the 90s. This is clearly wrong because people are still buying new and innovative FPS games.
Here's an article posted today on this thread subject, it has some interesting points and a lot of them already covered from both sides:
One item related to the exact thread title concerning the Wii target audience is this:
"David Yarnton, Nintendo UK's general manager, said, "We are not fighting our competitors, we are fighting apathy... Instead of trying to improve technology for its own sake, we decided to focus on those who weren't even playing games, who weren't on the radar.""
So Nintendo's focus i.e demographic by their own admission is people who aren't even playing games. It's a pretty vast jump to include experienced or hardcore gamers in that demographic when they are completely opposite.
Square Enix president says a similar thing:
"consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 "overengineered" and "too complex." He said, "There are too many specs--and you also need a high-definition TV, a broadband connection, and a deep knowledge of gaming. These consoles are mismatched to today's environment. In a year or two years, they will fare better."
He thinks they are being premature in releasing such advanced consoles but admits the scalability is there for the future. The Wii will fail in this regard. I guess Nintendo could always shorten their console release cycle as they'll have made their money more quickly where Sony and M$ will be trying to recoup losses but this isn't a great idea given the complexity and timeframe of game creation.
Zero Punctuation's take on the console wars. (extremely NSFW language, and a bit dated (August) but an excellent commentary on each console's shortcomings!)
Well there's a rock-solid argument if I've ever seen one; appeal to anonymous Internet poster authority.
Quote:
It has to have an element of truth or it would fall flat.
Of course it has an element of truth. There are a lot of kid-friendly games on the Nintendo. This does not mean that Nintendo products are solely for kids anymore than the fact that my car is often driven on a highway means that my car was built solely for highways.
Quote:
Of course, that's human nature, we get bored with repetition and grow out of simple pleasures.
This is absolutely nothing like human nature at all. The older we get, the more we actually enjoy simple pleasures. It's a bit redundant to attack your astounding ignorance of human nature (loathing violence = weakness; women love to get beaten up; etc…), but what you are describing is actually the symptomatic progression of substance abuse.
Quote:
I have the ability to adapt but not the desire to.
Which seems to make your viewpoint more narrow and inflexible and, therefore, less mature.
Quote:
You're looking at the evidence in a biased way though. The consoles are out of stock in stores because people wanted a cheap machine.
Where is the Wii regularly in stock for $250?
I can get a $280 Xbox 360 right now. I can get one 30 minutes from now. I will have no problem at all getting one.
Quote:
They are highly priced on ebay because they are out of stock and there are some people desperate to get one.
If the attraction was price, why would they pay more for a Wii than a PS3 off-the-shelf (there are plenty of those on shelves)?
Quote:
Sufficient levels of AI, detailed and varied environments, different enemy defense tactics and different weapons required help keep the gameplay from being repetitive. But sure there will be some level of repetition.
Just like with Mario/Zelda games.
Quote:
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out that the majority of modern FPS games would be difficult for an inexperienced gamer to access. I'd feel relatively confident that my mum could navigate through Mario Galaxy but she'd be killed in seconds playing CoD4.
Sure, but what does this mean? Complexity for complexity's sake isn't good. A more complex game is not necessarily a better or more mature game.
Quote:
It also has an identity associated with it from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony and with the exclusive titles and general style, genres, age ranges of the games presented for the console.
Why should anyone care about the "identity" of a games console?
Quote:
I might as well say all games have no innovation as they all involve a 3D character moving in 3D space doing something and that's been done since the 90s. This is clearly wrong because people are still buying new and innovative FPS games.
Yet you paint Mario/Zelda-type games with that stagnation brush… you should try being less hypocritical and dishonest in your talking points.
FPS gameplay mechanics have moved on from Doom, no question about that. Some of them are far more complex than Groverat gives them credit for......Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
In this decade, Unreal Tournament 2004, UT3, has to be considered as significantly advancing the FPS genre, IMO.
There is of course the deathmatch element, just as CounterStrike has the deathmatch element, the "bomb" thing is a cute add-on but not so significant as UT2004/ UT3 "Onslaught/Warfare" and "Capture The Flag" modes.
Firstly, yes, there have been many CaptureTheFlag gamestyles. However, in UT3, the vehicles, and vehicle designs take things to an interesting new level. Vehicles in particular like Necris Viper, Darkwalker, and Scavenger really mix things up, you'll know if you play it. In any 3D game, having a vehicle that actually moves based on 3 tentacle legs (UT3 scavenger), is really quite novel and not easy to code.
Then there is UT2004 (Onslaught) and UT3 (Warfare) "strategy" gameplay. This involves a somewhat complex system of "power nodes" which a team has to "own" to successfully attack the core enemy power node. Not as simple as it looks. Because a lot of decisions have to be made by various team members on what nodes to attack, what nodes to defend, and the timing on positioning attackers at the enemy core node to strike when just about the time when the enough nodes are controlled to "expose" the enemy core node.
There is this "orb" in Warfare mode. This has more "sport" then "killing" elements to it because it involves delivering this ball successfully to various nodes to instantly own it. Running with the orb and shooting around is generally suicide because all enemies will focus maximum attention on the orb carrier. Hence a more American Football/ rugby/ soccer approach is needed where the orb carrier has to dodge bullets, missiles, vehicles, landscape, building obstacles while running towards a node. There is a hoverboard and towing behind friendly vehicles that is also interesting. The team has to have enough cohesion so that if the orb is dropped, it needs to be carried on by someone else within about 10-15 seconds before the orb is "reset" to a position far away from where it needs to be carried to.
Obviously I'm a fan. Just wanted to share with everyone, despite this thread starting to suck majorly ... about UT3 contributing to the FPS genre.
Comments
That's the most hilariously wrong thing I've ever heard
Explain this, because it is beyond me how this could be offered as a statement worth considering.
Violence requires a degree of emotional maturity to deal with it. Years ago, my mum would cringe and walk out the room hearing Lara Croft fall to her death and hear her bones breaking or choking while drowning. I call that emotionally weak.
Immaturity is merely a lack of development. Once you've played enough games designed for immature gamers, you grow out of them because they don't satisfy your level of gaming needs.
In the same way, films don't affect you like they did when you were a kid UNLESS you haven't developed beyond that level. That's not to say people have to be embarrassed about it and somehow justify what they do by pretending it's meant for adults. Some people just don't feel the need to move on.
If an increasingly large group of people decide they want to be a part of franchises aimed at kids, does that change the target demographic? I personally don't think so.
OK, so you have no clue what emotionally weak means
Define what you think it means.
Well, I'm pretty sure my sisters, with there respective PhDs in biochemistry and molecular biology, would disagree with you.
You're talking about intellect not emotions.
As someone with a degree in epidemiology, I know that I disagree with you.
Now you're talking about immunity.
Because it is not a popular way to attack the XBox, that's why.
Yeeeeah and why isn't it a popular way to attack it?
I would suggest because it cannot be attacked in that way where the Wii can be because it is primarily aimed at children. If it wasn't then people wouldn't attack it like that.
So a sidescrolling jumper is the same as running around in 3D and shooting things with water cannons and flying on water jets?
I won't really argue, but Wolf3D has more similar mechanics to Crysis than Mario Brothers NES has to Super Mario Sunshine.
Well to me personally, the Mario games felt the same. Like I say, these things can't be defined universally. It depends on what level of gameplay experience you are at.
Yes, I have a definition that is technical and correct and yours is unnecessarily selective with the sole purpose of backing your argument.
Not selective, it's just different for different people and the definition of intense is based on your own experience. If you were really small in a country of really small people and someone of normal height came to visit, you'd say he was tall. But the tall person thinks he's average size and thinks you guys are small because he has a different benchmark for tall.
In the same way, I think most Nintendo games are weaker than PS3/XBox 360 games because I have a different benchmark.
When did I ever argue that some franchises were not designed solely for children? Barbie Adventures are not in any way meant for people older than 10. Zelda and Mario games are designed for a much larger age range.
How do you know that Zelda and Mario are designed for a large age range? I'm pretty sure sure Barbie doesn't have an upper age limit either. All they put on the box is something like 3+. The plus isn't there to include everybody in the same way a game for 'everyone' isn't meant for everyone. It just means the content is weak enough that it won't offend anyone over the age of 3.
Who are "hardcore gamers"?
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
Look at the gameplay in Mario Galaxy. You run around a planet, jumping and collecting and then you hop to another planet, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at everyone.
You can't expect a 6 year old kid to be able to maneuver an infantry unit or control a character with enough stealth to avoid snipers and still take on enemies in close combat. I see my young relatives play games and it's completely different to how I play games.
What is this amount? The Wii cannot stay on shelves long enough to test this hypothesis of yours.
All that says is people prefer cheap to intense.
Also, a lot of parents will get a Wii for their kids and that's probably the biggest market for games.
In fact, I'd say the Wii has split the market further than the previous generation consoles by simply not trying to compete on the same terms the PS3 and XBox are. They are themselves admitting that they're not after the same market.
What are the characteristics of an "in-depth gameplay experience"?
One that isn't full of repetitive gameplay mechanics. So for example, hopping from one small planet to another is not in-depth gameplay.
Far Cry - Wii
Resident Evil - Wii
Call of Duty - Wii
Manhunt 2 - Wii
There are exceptions of course - I can't think of many stereotypes that are based on absolutes. But having a handful of these games does not redefine the console.
So you're a grown man and you think playing a Sony/Microsoft-brand video game is objectively cooler than playing a Nintendo-brand video game?
I AM A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN! I HAVE SEX WITH MANY WOMEN!
It worked for me.
For Wii owners, even the smallest gestures can be quite overwhelming.
You drive a Hummer and buy lots of products with 'X-TREME' in the name, don't you?
I drive a Fiat Punto X-treme. I can do 0-60 in a couple of minutes. But those minutes are pretty extreme.
Multiplayer Mario Cart (ESRB rating: E) is certainly more "intense" than sniping people in a GTA series game. In fact, multiplayer Mario Cart is just as "intense" and results in just as much exciting competition as any other action-heavy multiplayer game like Halo or COD.
Compare Mario Kart to Burnout and the difference is pretty staggering.
Also, it wasn't really GTA I meant. When I say blowing someone's head off with a rifle, I meant just sniping them in the head. There are games where you have to duck under cover and aim at people's heads.
One example of a pretty intense FPS game for the PSP involves enemies with electro-plated armor. You have to electrocute them first to disable their armor and then sniper them while taking fire from other enemies.
MarioKart Double-Dash is responsible for my clean-mouthed wife uttering the phrase "Mother-fucking figure skating mother-fuckers!"
You're talking about intellect not emotions.
No, I'm talking about the fact that-obviously unlike you-they understand biology and genetics
Now you're talking about immunity.
Please, just stop. You're seriously embarrassing yourself. Epidemiology is not immunology.
New to the internet are you? Also it only becomes an argument when people reduce it to name-calling, so please don't do that, just allow the grown ups to discuss the subject rationally.
Violence requires maturity.
OK, it's more than obvious by now you're either a troll, or an attention whore, or both and not worth my time; but I'll go ahead and do this anyway, mainly because I'm bored.
The first problem is, you're using faulty and circular logic. For example, here is some of your logic:
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
Look at the gameplay in Mario Galaxy. You run around a planet, jumping and collecting and then you hop to another planet, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at everyone.
Now, this applies just as easily to the games you profess to be 'mature', 'intense' and I hazard to guess, 'manly':
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, shoot, repeat because it's boring.
Look at the game play in Crysis. You run around a level, hiding and shooting and then you hop to another level, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at intense 'adults' who are cooler than everyone else.
I'd love it if you could offer a concise, logical explanation with evidence, of how the fundamental game play in a modern shooter differs significantly from Doom? I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'? Keep in mind, I'm a fan of FPS, and have been playing FPS since before you were born (or I assume so from the maturity/coherence of your posts), original Doom shareware version up to the modern era.
Violence requires maturity.
On to your opinion that a game isn't mature or intense unless it is violent, and apparently a similar fascination with violent movies.
How many people have YOU killed, personally?
Myself, none directly. But, I have been trained to kill, and after serving through two wars and a few 'minor conflicts', I've been a member of units that have killed people.
So, by your own logic, I am far more mature (and intense!) than you.
To go on, that would mean that a 13 year old member of a warlord's private army in Africa is more mature than either of us, since he 'plays' FPS for real, right? Hitler or Stalin would be the most mature and intense people of all time, since they have the most frags, right? You must think Ghandi was one immature bugger.
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence; and that many games incorporate some type of violence, obviously of different depiction levels.
After all, even Mario involves some violence, you are stomping on enemies and crushing their life out, pulling the limbs off of an octopus, etc. I mentioned earlier that I enjoy a good FPS, in fact I used to play them almost exclusively, and still put in a couple hours a week when I get the time, sometimes more when I'm close to an MP unlock, or come across a good SP one, like HL2 and it's Episodes.
Then I grew up (some might say matured) and realized that there is more to life than such simplistic game play day after day. Have you ever achieved a cultural victory in Civ4-BtS without going to war? Made it through the Enclave in Fallout 2 without firing a shot? Won a MP game of C&C using only mini gunners? (I was the victim of that one) Made it all the way through Tower Defense with your friends in WC3? Not as hand/eye/twitch intense as an FPS, but much more intellectually satisfying.
I don't think that playing a family/party/sports game with friends makes someone any less of a man, less mature, etc. In fact they are pretty popular within the military on deployment, good for letting off steam after the real bullets are flying. (I'm sure you don't know anything about that though)
In fact, I'd say the Wii has split the market further than the previous generation consoles by simply not trying to compete on the same terms the PS3 and XBox are. They are themselves admitting that they're not after the same market.
And which one is laughing all the way to the bank, while outselling the others by a huge margin, and having sex with many women on their piles of cash? Maybe Nintendo isn't the one in the wrong market?
And you seem to be indicating that you ignore common knowledge. Women are genetically the emotionally weaker sex. It doesn't apply to all women but I'm generalizing.
Sigh. This has been covered by others, but I'll just say you need to get the number of a good divorce lawyer, you're going to need one.
I don't expect any of this to change your opinion though, just as I don't take what is said on the internet personally. Although I do feel better after venting some...
If you are into mature games, get PS3 or Xbox 360. Even the president of Nintendo will agree that they have better selection of mature games than a Wii.
If you are into family-oriented games, get a Wii. And please, let's not debate on what constitutes mature and family-oriented. You know exactly what they are. If you don't, you are probably better off NOT playing any games.
If impressive technical spec is important to you, get PS3 or Xbox 360. If you like Blu-Ray, get a PS3. If you like HD DVD, get an Xbox 360.
If motion sensing controllers interest you more than HD graphics and sound, get a Wii.
Sigh... you guys are stinking off this thread.
I have to agree with that, and I'm guilty as charged too.
Sigh... you guys are stinking off this thread.
If you are into mature games, get PS3 or Xbox 360. Even the president of Nintendo will agree that they have better selection of mature games than a Wii.
If you are into family-oriented games, get a Wii. And please, let's not debate on what constitutes mature and family-oriented. You know exactly what they are. If you don't, you are probably better off NOT playing any games.
If impressive technical spec is important to you, get PS3 or Xbox 360. If you like Blu-Ray, get a PS3. If you like HD DVD, get an Xbox 360.
If motion sensing controllers interest you more than HD graphics and sound, get a Wii.
Do you really think you 'solved' the question this thread posed?
Nice try but the things you say have been said and debated ad nauseam.
Don't you mean Mrs. Hand?
Well, probably I should just refer to it as "The Hand" -- you see, it is bisexual and a hermaphrodite too.
.....So you're a grown man and you think playing a Sony/Microsoft-brand video game is objectively cooler than playing a Nintendo-brand video game?
I AM A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN! I HAVE SEX WITH MANY WOMEN!....
Hmm.
Now, this applies just as easily to the games you profess to be 'mature', 'intense' and I hazard to guess, 'manly':
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, shoot, repeat because it's boring.
Look at the game play in Crysis. You run around a level, hiding and shooting and then you hop to another level, run around and do the same thing. There's no complexity in there and there really can't be if it's targeted at intense 'adults' who are cooler than everyone else.
I'd love it if you could offer a concise, logical explanation with evidence, of how the fundamental game play in a modern shooter differs significantly from Doom? I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'? Keep in mind, I'm a fan of FPS, and have been playing FPS since before you were born (or I assume so from the maturity/coherence of your posts), original Doom shareware version up to the modern era.
Even though the concept of going around and shooting people is continuous, the way you do it differs every level. It's not like you're walking in a straight line and there's always a guy in the same spot right in front of you and you shoot him. In fps's, the enemy is clever. He hides and you must seek. You have different missions in which you much neutralize the enemy or diffuse a bomb. You must rescue your fallen comrades while dodging bullets which are flying at you from every which way.
The perfect example of this is CoD4. If you're a sniper for say, you must hide in a good place, or else the enemy sees you as soon as you shoot and when they respawn, BAM!, you're dead.
The PS3, however, is worth every penny.
lollll
OK, it's more than obvious by now you're either a troll, or an attention whore, or both and not worth my time; but I'll go ahead and do this anyway, mainly because I'm bored.
I hope you're not holding yourself to a different standard.
I'm not talking about electric armor on the enemies, better graphics, bigger levels or other minor differences. How has the game play changed from 'run around and shoot things'?
There are more complex character controls and also tactics like stealth. In Splinter Cell, you can toss a coin or something to attract a guard but stay hidden before you attack.
So, by your own logic, I am far more mature (and intense!) than you.
Not really, you haven't killed anybody but if you had, I would agree that's pretty intense.
This does not however mean that you are intense now. My grandad also fought in those wars and did kill people but these days likes to watch soap operas and gardening programs.
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence; and that many games incorporate some type of violence, obviously of different depiction levels.
That is all I was suggesting.
After all, even Mario involves some violence, you are stomping on enemies and crushing their life out, pulling the limbs off of an octopus
Yeah Groverat has said things like that before too but as filburt says, the difference is quite obvious between mature games and family games. I don't think I need to elaborate on that more than I have.
I don't think that playing a family/party/sports game with friends makes someone any less of a man, less mature, etc. In fact they are pretty popular within the military on deployment, good for letting off steam after the real bullets are flying.
But you're looking at it the wrong way. The people who fire real bullets don't have to play these games and so they may play more relaxed games.
It's the same deal with porn stars. Apparently they don't watch porn movies but prefer normal films.
But that's what we are saying. If you are looking for that kind of experience, the Wii games generally don't deliver.
And which one is laughing all the way to the bank, while outselling the others by a huge margin, and having sex with many women on their piles of cash? Maybe Nintendo isn't the one in the wrong market?
Yes, but this discussion is not about which market is more profitable. It is about whether or not the Wii delivers to a certain type of player.
I have no doubt that NIntendo is happy with the market they are targeting as it's making them money.
Sigh. This has been covered by others, but I'll just say you need to get the number of a good divorce lawyer, you're going to need one.
I've got that one covered, I don't plan to get married. Of course if I ever got into a divorce-type settlement, I can just kill her with my FPS skillz.
I don't expect any of this to change your opinion though, just as I don't take what is said on the internet personally. Although I do feel better after venting some...
Violence requires a degree of emotional maturity to deal with it. Years ago, my mum would cringe and walk out the room hearing Lara Croft fall to her death and hear her bones breaking or choking while drowning. I call that emotionally weak.
Perhaps it displays maturity because she connects that to reality, and she feels real empathy for those who suffer that pain.
Your speaking about the emotional reactions of your own mother with such disdain is fairly revealing.
If an increasingly large group of people decide they want to be a part of franchises aimed at kids, does that change the target demographic? I personally don't think so.
What franchise are you talking about?
Yeeeeah and why isn't it a popular way to attack it?
Because they have other attacks.
The existence (or even efficacy) of an attack does not mean it is true.
Well to me personally, the Mario games felt the same. Like I say, these things can't be defined universally. It depends on what level of gameplay experience you are at.
So you make categorical statements of reality and truth based solely on your own personal feelings?
As far as level of gameplay experience… what is this supposed to mean? Once you've logged X# of hours you no longer enjoy simple games?
In the same way, I think most Nintendo games are weaker than PS3/XBox 360 games because I have a different benchmark.
Different? Yes.
Superior, more "mature"? No.
How do you know that Zelda and Mario are designed for a large age range?
Because they are filled with allusions to games made 20 years ago, playing precisely on the nostalgia older gamers will feel towards the games they played when they were younger.
Hardcore gamers are gamers who have been playing games for years and are experienced with complex control systems and game mechanics. These people cannot be content with a system that is too simplistic like run, jump, collect because it's boring.
I have been playing games for years and I am experience with complex control systems and game mechanics.
Isn't an inability on someone's part to adjust to different levels of intensity and complexity a sign of immaturity on their part? I think it is more reasonable to credit the more adaptable person with maturity.
All that says is people prefer cheap to intense.
What is the price difference between a Wii and a base XBox 360?
Xbox 360 Core Arcade Bundle - $279.99
The Wii retails for $250. They go on eBay for $400+.
Yet another asinine argument fails.
One that isn't full of repetitive gameplay mechanics. So for example, hopping from one small planet to another is not in-depth gameplay.
FPS games don't have repetitive gameplay?
Run around, hide, shoot.
Run around, hide, shoot.
Run around, hide, shoot.
It's ok, because sometimes I like the process, but let's not pretend that modern FPS games are really complex at all. If you want complexity, you should start talking about highly-involved RTS.
There are exceptions of course - I can't think of many stereotypes that are based on absolutes. But having a handful of these games does not redefine the console.
A console is nothing but the games that play on it.
But the biggest steps forward I can think of were taken till about 1999. Good games have been made afterwards, but the ones that dare to do something truly new are few and far between.
This counterexample also fails:
There are more complex character controls and also tactics like stealth. In Splinter Cell, you can toss a coin or something to attract a guard but stay hidden before you attack.
Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, a 3rd person stealth/combat game like Splinter Cell, had this game mechanic in 1990.
Thief: Dark Project (1998) did it in 3D from the first person perspective. Though very strictly focused on stealth, it can be called a FPS while Splinter Cell (2002) is not.
Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
Perhaps it displays maturity because she connects that to reality, and she feels real empathy for those who suffer that pain.
I agree with iPoster who agrees with me:
I agree with you that a certain level of maturity is required to separate the violence in games from real life violence
Because they have other attacks.
The existence (or even efficacy) of an attack does not mean it is true.
It has to have an element of truth or it would fall flat.
So you make categorical statements of reality and truth based solely on your own personal feelings?
Nope I make definitions that encompass variables. I don't feel the need to work in absolute terms.
As far as level of gameplay experience… what is this supposed to mean? Once you've logged X# of hours you no longer enjoy simple games?
Of course, that's human nature, we get bored with repetition and grow out of simple pleasures.
I have been playing games for years and I am experience with complex control systems and game mechanics.
Isn't an inability on someone's part to adjust to different levels of intensity and complexity a sign of immaturity on their part? I think it is more reasonable to credit the more adaptable person with maturity.
I have the ability to adapt but not the desire to.
What is the price difference between a Wii and a base XBox 360?
The Wii retails for $250. They go on eBay for $400+.
Yet another asinine argument fails.
You're looking at the evidence in a biased way though. The consoles are out of stock in stores because people wanted a cheap machine. They are highly priced on ebay because they are out of stock and there are some people desperate to get one. This would be the case if the Xbox was that cheap and out of stock.
FPS games don't have repetitive gameplay?
Run around, hide, shoot.
Sufficient levels of AI, detailed and varied environments, different enemy defense tactics and different weapons required help keep the gameplay from being repetitive. But sure there will be some level of repetition.
It's ok, because sometimes I like the process, but let's not pretend that modern FPS games are really complex at all. If you want complexity, you should start talking about highly-involved RTS.
Isn't Portal technically a first person shooter? That can be pretty complex.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out that the majority of modern FPS games would be difficult for an inexperienced gamer to access. I'd feel relatively confident that my mum could navigate through Mario Galaxy but she'd be killed in seconds playing CoD4.
A console is nothing but the games that play on it.
It also has an identity associated with it from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony and with the exclusive titles and general style, genres, age ranges of the games presented for the console.
Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
But you are simplifying the definition of FPS. I might as well say all games have no innovation as they all involve a 3D character moving in 3D space doing something and that's been done since the 90s. This is clearly wrong because people are still buying new and innovative FPS games.
Here's an article posted today on this thread subject, it has some interesting points and a lot of them already covered from both sides:
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6184018....;picks;title;2
One item related to the exact thread title concerning the Wii target audience is this:
"David Yarnton, Nintendo UK's general manager, said, "We are not fighting our competitors, we are fighting apathy... Instead of trying to improve technology for its own sake, we decided to focus on those who weren't even playing games, who weren't on the radar.""
So Nintendo's focus i.e demographic by their own admission is people who aren't even playing games. It's a pretty vast jump to include experienced or hardcore gamers in that demographic when they are completely opposite.
Square Enix president says a similar thing:
"consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 "overengineered" and "too complex." He said, "There are too many specs--and you also need a high-definition TV, a broadband connection, and a deep knowledge of gaming. These consoles are mismatched to today's environment. In a year or two years, they will fare better."
He thinks they are being premature in releasing such advanced consoles but admits the scalability is there for the future. The Wii will fail in this regard. I guess Nintendo could always shorten their console release cycle as they'll have made their money more quickly where Sony and M$ will be trying to recoup losses but this isn't a great idea given the complexity and timeframe of game creation.
Just not in this thread! LOL
Zero Punctuation's take on the console wars. (extremely NSFW language, and a bit dated (August) but an excellent commentary on each console's shortcomings!)
I agree with iPoster who agrees with me:
Well there's a rock-solid argument if I've ever seen one; appeal to anonymous Internet poster authority.
It has to have an element of truth or it would fall flat.
Of course it has an element of truth. There are a lot of kid-friendly games on the Nintendo. This does not mean that Nintendo products are solely for kids anymore than the fact that my car is often driven on a highway means that my car was built solely for highways.
Of course, that's human nature, we get bored with repetition and grow out of simple pleasures.
This is absolutely nothing like human nature at all. The older we get, the more we actually enjoy simple pleasures. It's a bit redundant to attack your astounding ignorance of human nature (loathing violence = weakness; women love to get beaten up; etc…), but what you are describing is actually the symptomatic progression of substance abuse.
I have the ability to adapt but not the desire to.
Which seems to make your viewpoint more narrow and inflexible and, therefore, less mature.
You're looking at the evidence in a biased way though. The consoles are out of stock in stores because people wanted a cheap machine.
Where is the Wii regularly in stock for $250?
I can get a $280 Xbox 360 right now. I can get one 30 minutes from now. I will have no problem at all getting one.
They are highly priced on ebay because they are out of stock and there are some people desperate to get one.
If the attraction was price, why would they pay more for a Wii than a PS3 off-the-shelf (there are plenty of those on shelves)?
Sufficient levels of AI, detailed and varied environments, different enemy defense tactics and different weapons required help keep the gameplay from being repetitive. But sure there will be some level of repetition.
Just like with Mario/Zelda games.
Anyway, I'm simply pointing out that the majority of modern FPS games would be difficult for an inexperienced gamer to access. I'd feel relatively confident that my mum could navigate through Mario Galaxy but she'd be killed in seconds playing CoD4.
Sure, but what does this mean? Complexity for complexity's sake isn't good. A more complex game is not necessarily a better or more mature game.
It also has an identity associated with it from Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony and with the exclusive titles and general style, genres, age ranges of the games presented for the console.
Why should anyone care about the "identity" of a games console?
I might as well say all games have no innovation as they all involve a 3D character moving in 3D space doing something and that's been done since the 90s. This is clearly wrong because people are still buying new and innovative FPS games.
Yet you paint Mario/Zelda-type games with that stagnation brush… you should try being less hypocritical and dishonest in your talking points.
FPS gameplay mechanics have moved on from Doom, no question about that. Some of them are far more complex than Groverat gives them credit for......Original *FPS* game designs from *this* decade would be more convincing as indicators that FPS gameplay is actually going somewhere.
In this decade, Unreal Tournament 2004, UT3, has to be considered as significantly advancing the FPS genre, IMO.
There is of course the deathmatch element, just as CounterStrike has the deathmatch element, the "bomb" thing is a cute add-on but not so significant as UT2004/ UT3 "Onslaught/Warfare" and "Capture The Flag" modes.
Firstly, yes, there have been many CaptureTheFlag gamestyles. However, in UT3, the vehicles, and vehicle designs take things to an interesting new level. Vehicles in particular like Necris Viper, Darkwalker, and Scavenger really mix things up, you'll know if you play it. In any 3D game, having a vehicle that actually moves based on 3 tentacle legs (UT3 scavenger), is really quite novel and not easy to code.
Then there is UT2004 (Onslaught) and UT3 (Warfare) "strategy" gameplay. This involves a somewhat complex system of "power nodes" which a team has to "own" to successfully attack the core enemy power node. Not as simple as it looks. Because a lot of decisions have to be made by various team members on what nodes to attack, what nodes to defend, and the timing on positioning attackers at the enemy core node to strike when just about the time when the enough nodes are controlled to "expose" the enemy core node.
There is this "orb" in Warfare mode. This has more "sport" then "killing" elements to it because it involves delivering this ball successfully to various nodes to instantly own it. Running with the orb and shooting around is generally suicide because all enemies will focus maximum attention on the orb carrier. Hence a more American Football/ rugby/ soccer approach is needed where the orb carrier has to dodge bullets, missiles, vehicles, landscape, building obstacles while running towards a node. There is a hoverboard and towing behind friendly vehicles that is also interesting. The team has to have enough cohesion so that if the orb is dropped, it needs to be carried on by someone else within about 10-15 seconds before the orb is "reset" to a position far away from where it needs to be carried to.
Obviously I'm a fan. Just wanted to share with everyone, despite this thread starting to suck majorly